Back to Nordhaus DICE versus CJL DICE
(1) time period is an input: 1 up to 10
(2) get rid of CO2 time travel (as forcing at t should NOT be dependent on carbon at t+1)
(3) use explicit finite difference scheme for TATM(T+1) equation (temperature at t+1 is dependent on forcing at t instead of forcing at t+1)
(4) flexible saving
(5) nonzero terminal value function
(6) cancel terminal condition for capital or investment
(7) cancel extra variables and equations
(8) flexible emission control rate at the 1st period (from Kyoto protocol, original Nordhaus code fixed mu[1] to be 0.005)
(9) change sum(t$(ord(t)<card(t)), E(t)) <= 6000 into sum(t, E(t)) <= 6000
(10) change participate rate at the first stage from 0.25372 to 1
For CJL1 only:
(11) use the solution of CJL2 as initial guess
(12) change scale1 from 194 to 8600
===============
The code and output of CJL with various time intervals (10,8,4,2,1 years) are in subpages.
Attachments: pictures for comparison between Nordhaus original results and CJL results.